A recent it's-hard-to-know-what-to-call-it essay, mentioned still more recently on MOJ, contends that "there is no coherent jurisprudential argument against same-sex marriage." No coherent jurisprudential argument against same-sex marriage. Wow.

Is that a defensible contention? My view on the other side is summarized here. Lockeanism, fueled by neo-conservativism, leads to juridical recognition of same-sex marriage. I get it! The alternatives are stark. I credit the logic by which Bottum contends that being an American "first" (!!!) demands what Bottum then demands.

But why would any self-respecting soul want to be an American "first?" Probe Bottum's piece for the alleged reasons.